peterson thinks astronomy is for the wealthy only

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 8:07:10 PM UTC-6, wrote:

What appears to be happening WRT the astro mags, vendors, clubs, and some
experienced amateurs is that many of them have "forgotten where they came
from," so to speak.

They seem to assume that all "worthy" amateurs are members of a club,
subscribers to the magazine, attendees of star parties and fanatical astro-
imagers.

In the old days, small telescopes were often depicted in adverts along with
the more expensive models. Now, similar instruments might merit just the
model name and price in small type in a list near the corner.

I remember some kind of announcement in Sky and Telescope within the last
couple of years that they were facing problems because some major advertisers
had significantly shrunk the amount of space they were purchasing - and so the
magazine would be shrinking.

Part of this is because the telescope companies like Meade and Orion feel
they're able to reach people well enough through their own web sites, so they
don't need to have ads that present a large chunk of their catalog of products.

So they spend money on advertising things whose sales might increase in
response to advertising.

Also, this is partly a particular case of a phenomenon some people have
noticed. It seems like in today's economy, nearly all the innovative products
are directed at the "1%" - that it's only the upper middle class (not just the
very rich) that has the disposable income to make a new product profitable. The
rest of us wait for the cheap Chinese imitations. The iPhone and iPod are
usually taken as the chief examples of this.

John Savard

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 1:17:07 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 8:07:10 PM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

What appears to be happening WRT the astro mags, vendors, clubs, and some
experienced amateurs is that many of them have "forgotten where they came
from," so to speak.

They seem to assume that all "worthy" amateurs are members of a club,
subscribers to the magazine, attendees of star parties and fanatical astro-
imagers.

In the old days, small telescopes were often depicted in adverts along with
the more expensive models. Now, similar instruments might merit just the
model name and price in small type in a list near the corner.

I remember some kind of announcement in Sky and Telescope within the last
couple of years that they were facing problems because some major advertisers
had significantly shrunk the amount of space they were purchasing - and so the
magazine would be shrinking.

Part of this is because the telescope companies like Meade and Orion feel
they're able to reach people well enough through their own web sites, so they
don't need to have ads that present a large chunk of their catalog of products.

So they spend money on advertising things whose sales might increase in
response to advertising.

Also, this is partly a particular case of a phenomenon some people have
noticed. It seems like in today's economy, nearly all the innovative products
are directed at the "1%" - that it's only the upper middle class (not just the
very rich) that has the disposable income to make a new product profitable. The
rest of us wait for the cheap Chinese imitations. The iPhone and iPod are
usually taken as the chief examples of this.

Browsing a vendor's Web site is an active process, versus browsing a magazine and happening upon an interesting advertisement, a passive process.

If one visits the typical "Star-Mangler" site one is likely to see an almost bewildering array of products, most of which are probably not appropriate for a newbie. One almost has to know exactly what to look for, and most newbies won't know.

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 3:35:12 AM UTC-7, wrote:

If one visits the typical "Star-Mangler" site one is likely to see an almost bewildering array of products, most of which are probably not appropriate for a newbie. One almost has to know exactly what to look for, and most newbies won't know.

Which is exactly why a newbie who thinks he might enjoy the hobby should attend a public star party and experience a variety of telescopes and talk with their owners about the pros and cons of each design. At my own favorite star party we actively encourage such folks to attend for just these reasons.

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
Sure, some poor people might find creative ways to get some sort of
telescope
they can afford if they are really interested in astronomical
observation.

Like John Dobson did...

On Saturday, 28 March 2015 23:24:31 UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
Sure, some poor people might find creative ways to get some sort of
telescope
they can afford if they are really interested in astronomical
observation.

Like John Dobson did...

It now seems odd how an impoverished amateur's constructive ideas have led to a global industry which now manufactures even luxury-priced instruments. It just goes to show that our future is always wide open to the most unlikely stimulants to progress. We often assume that only geniuses, scientists and teams of engineers are capable of creating real change in our technologically obsessed society. Yet given a basic idea our many creative thinkers and artisans can transform the original in the most surprising directions. Lightweight trusses, thin mirrors and huge apertures were almost unheard of in amateur hands prior to John Dobson.

His dumpster and building site found materials have blossomed into exquisite artworks in exotic multi-plies. The demand for ever-shorter focal lengths, as aperture has risen dramatically, has led to mirror-making breakthroughs and new support methods. Coma correctors and wide angle eyepieces followed the trend. Tracking platforms grow ever more exotic and sophisticated. His massive expansion of axis bearing sizes has rid us of spindly equatorial mountings.

Dobson's ideas have greatly expanded interest in amateur astronomy and provides useful employment around the globe. The hobby owes a huge debt to his clarity of vision and constructive mind.

On 03/27/2015 04:37 AM, wrote:
peterson recently wrote in another thread (Expensive, high-end scopes and mounts. Aimed at the rich, or the morons?) :

"...astronomy is largely a hobby of the upper middle class, for whom investments of several thousand dollars (even with teenagers) isn't that big a deal..."


The upper middle class represents perhaps 15% or so of the US population. So the other ~85% need not apply?



So start a new thread that is clearly irrelevant to this group's
purpose? No. He's right, by the way, but those who are determined
enough, even with limited resources, can still enjoy the night sky.
Case in point: I moved by into my parents place when I lost my job. I
didn't obtain another job for 7 years, yet I owned a C9.25 on G11 mount,
a Starlight Xpress camera, and various accessories that were a necessity
for astrophotography. I enjoyed the hobby for 3 out of those 7 years.
All of the equipment was purchased new. No, I didn't ask mom and dad.
Fortunately, I was able to save a lot of money while I was working and I
used some of the savings for purchase. After using it for 3 years, I
sold it all for nearly what I paid originally on both Astromart and
Ebay. I tend to think of this as a sort of renting the equipment.
There's no way I could have ever rented this stuff for years without
ending up paying way more than it cost originally, so I came up with the
aforementioned solution. In the end, virtually no money was lost and I
got to enjoy the hobby for those 3 years in all its glory. So, if one
is determined/ resourceful enough, then the hobby can become a reality
with minimal losses provided careful planning is done.

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 1:10:11 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 3:35:12 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:

If one visits the typical "Star-Mangler" site one is likely to see an almost bewildering array of products, most of which are probably not appropriate for a newbie. One almost has to know exactly what to look for, and most newbies won't know.

Which is exactly why a newbie who thinks he might enjoy the hobby should
attend a public star party and experience a variety of telescopes and talk
with their owners about the pros and cons of each design. At my own favorite
star party we actively encourage such folks to attend for just these reasons.

Most newbies can't or won't attend, and even if most of them did attend, you and your cohorts will probably discourage most of them before they ever get started.

My local club was only about four miles away, and within range by the time I was in my mid teens. Luckily, I had already been observing for several years before encountering the club.

On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 7:37:01 PM UTC-4, bill ashford wrote:
On 03/27/2015 04:37 AM, wsnell01 wrote:
peterson recently wrote in another thread (Expensive, high-end scopes and mounts. Aimed at the rich, or the morons?) :

"...astronomy is largely a hobby of the upper middle class, for whom investments of several thousand dollars (even with teenagers) isn't that big a deal..."


The upper middle class represents perhaps 15% or so of the US population. So the other ~85% need not apply?



So start a new thread that is clearly irrelevant to this group's
purpose? No. He's right, by the way, but those who are determined
enough, even with limited resources, can still enjoy the night sky.

peterson doesn't seem to think so. That's why I started the thread, to showcase his cluelessness.

Case in point: I moved by into my parents place when I lost my job. I
didn't obtain another job for 7 years, yet I owned a C9.25 on G11 mount,
a Starlight Xpress camera, and various accessories that were a necessity
for astrophotography. I enjoyed the hobby for 3 out of those 7 years.
All of the equipment was purchased new. No, I didn't ask mom and dad.
Fortunately, I was able to save a lot of money while I was working and I
used some of the savings for purchase. After using it for 3 years, I
sold it all for nearly what I paid originally on both Astromart and
Ebay. I tend to think of this as a sort of renting the equipment.
There's no way I could have ever rented this stuff for years without
ending up paying way more than it cost originally, so I came up with the
aforementioned solution. In the end, virtually no money was lost and I
got to enjoy the hobby for those 3 years in all its glory. So, if one
is determined/ resourceful enough, then the hobby can become a reality
with minimal losses provided careful planning is done.

You had the advantage of 1) money and 2) reduced living expenses.

Young (minor) newbies have the second, but not very often the first.

Young adult newbies usually have neither the first nor the second.

As a teen I was acquainted with at least a dozen other teens who had more than a passing interest in astronomy but only one or two, IIRC, were members of the local club (~100 members,) which was overwhelmingly NOT youthful at the time. I eventually joined the club to get a break on magazine subscription. AFAICT, most of the club's members started in astronomy young and only joined a club much later.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:00:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

So start a new thread that is clearly irrelevant to this group's
purpose? No. He's right, by the way, but those who are determined
enough, even with limited resources, can still enjoy the night sky.

peterson doesn't seem to think so.

I've said nothing to suggest otherwise. There's absolutely nothing
preventing a poverty stricken amateur from getting involved in amateur
astronomy.

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 11:23:26 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:00:48 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

So start a new thread that is clearly irrelevant to this group's
purpose? No. He's right, by the way, but those who are determined
enough, even with limited resources, can still enjoy the night sky.

peterson doesn't seem to think so.

I've said nothing to suggest otherwise. There's absolutely nothing
preventing a poverty stricken amateur from getting involved in amateur
astronomy.

Except advice from clubs, magazines and various blogs NOT to buy telescopes from department stores or to spend at least $500 on a first telescope.